= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
katydee comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (770)
Sorry, forgot that not everyone saw the thread in question. Eliezer replied to the original post and explicitly said that it was dangerous and should not be published. I am willing to take his word for it, as he knows far more about AI than I.
I have not seen the original post, but can't someone simply post it somewhere else? Is deleting it from here really a solution (assuming there's real danger)? BTW, I can't really see how a post on a board can be dangerous in a way implied here.
The likely explanation is that people who read the article agreed it was dangerous. If some of them had decided the censorship was unjustified, LW might look like Digg after the AACS key controversy.
I read the article, and it struck me as dangerous. I'm going to be somewhat vague and say that the article caused two potential forms of danger, one unlikely but extremely bad if it occurs and the other less damaging but having evidence(in the article itself) that the damage type had occurred. FWIW, Roko seemed to agree after some discussion that spreading the idea did pose a real danger.
In fact, there are hundreds of deleted articles on LW. The community is small enough for it to be manually policed - it seems.
Sadly, those who saw the original post have declined to share.